This is some delicious information and I commend you guys (esp James) for all the research.

Regarding the relatively high cost of modern vehicles, even adjusting for inflation, the explanation may be economies of scale. Automobiles are cheap because they are mass produced by robots from interchangeable parts. These days, transit vehicles in particular, are a specialty item built with minimal automation in small batches, tailored to the needs of individual agencies. Modern railroads and European passenger railroads surely have a greater economy of scale than North American transit agencies, but a much smaller share of GDP purchasing power, much higher wages (education, health care, pensions) than the industrial era, and much higher regulatory standards. So, yeah, a passenger carriage will set you back a lot more today in inflation-adjusted currency.

An aside: one really neat thing we did in America in the 1950s 1930s (thanks wlindley) was a bunch of transit agencies got together and collaborated to spec out and build the PCC Streetcar: every city would order the same type of streetcar: better economy of scale, and it is a really nice streetcar to boot! If any of you visit San Francisco, near where I live, I'd be happy to ride one one of these restored beauties with you and talk simutrans!

It was a little earlier than you might think. The first PCC ([Street Railway Company] Presidents' Conference Car) car prototype was operated on the Brooklyn & Queens Transit Corporation (B&QT) in 1936, and the last American ones were built in 1952.

Looking at the history of some american diesel electrics, it seems like the entry level Bo'Bo' cost around $150,000 from 1950 to around 1980. While a higher end Co'Co' was around twice that, at $291,000

Ahrons (full reference above) at p. 234 notes the coal consumption of the LNWR "Bloomer" as 27-28lb/mile. He also records (on the same page) the GNR Stirling Single as being very economical engines, consuming 27lb of coal per mile. On the previous page, he gives the average coal consumption of an LNWR Precedent as about 37lb/mile, and the "Precursor" 33.2lb/mile; the Midland 800 and 1300 classes 31lb/mile.

Edit: More information on the running cost of steam locomotives: see here for a Google Books result on the topic. This is from the 1909 edition of US magazine, "Popular Science" at p. 217. It records the following:

Electrification of the Manhattan Railway increased efficiency from 1.4 ton miles to a pound of coal to 3.85 ton miles per pound of coal (presumably, the power stations burned coal)

Fuel is about 12% of the cost of operation

The reduction in staff costs were estimated at 5%

The repairs to steam locomotives amount to about 8% of the total operating expense

The repairs to an electric locomotive amount to much less - in the neighbourhood of 2%

The aggregate economy in operating expense for electric railways above steam amounts to about 20%

Bond, R.C. Ten years' experience with the L.M.S. 4-6-2 non-condensing turbine locomotive, No.6202. 182-230. Disc.: 231-65 + 10 folding plates. 4 illus., 20 diagrs. (incl. 4 s.els.), 10 tables. Ljungstrom non-condensing turbine 2-8-0 locomotive on the Grangesberg-Oxelösund Railway: illustration and side elevation. The turbines (one for forward, and another for reverse working) were the major distinguishing feature and these in turn placed considerable demands upon the lubricating system, and to some extent upon the boiler. A feed water heater was fitted. There was a double blast pipe and chimney. It was soon found that the degree of superheating needed to be increased. Roller bearings were fitted. There are data on availability and a detailed record of repairs. Table 2 compared coal and water consumption of the turbine locomotive with Princess Royal Nos. 6212 and 6210 on London to Glasgow workings with a dynamometer car:

Engine

6212

6210

6202

6202

6202

Miles

1608

1608

1608

1207

1608

Coal lbs/mile

42.90

44.98

42.4

45.15

41.6

Coal lbs/dbhph

3.22

2.977

2.97

2.855

2.78

Water gallons/mile

36.1

37.26

34.2

34.96

37.1

Water lbs/dbhph

26.90

24.67

24.00

22.11

24.80

[/t]

[/q] Bond used these data to show that No. 6202 achieved a lower coal consumption of over 6% except in the case of one run by No. 6212. Data compared the hammer blow inflicted by three classes: Coronation at 72 mile/h 3.47 tons per rail (whole engine: .24); 5XP at 72 mile/h 8.31 tons per rail (whole engine: .61) and classs 5 at 64 mile/h 7.59 tons per rail (whole engine: 9.03) Data were presented which showed that coal consumption of the Royal Scot class increased by 8% over 28,000 miles of running due to wear in the valves and pistons. Hammer blow and wear in cylinders was eliminated in No. 6202. Discussion: opened the discussion by noting how he and Dr Guy of Metropolitan Vickers visited Sweden to see a Ljungstrom non-condensing turbine 2-8-0 locomotive on the Grangesberg-Oxelösund Railway. He admitted that it had been a mistake to use a boiler with too small a superheater, basing this on Swindon practice. E.S. Cox (232-3) noted that he had observed the Pennsylvania Railroad turbine locomotive at work when it was scheduled to perform the Chicago to Crestline round-trip of 580 miles within 24 hours. He had observed the locomotive from the footplate between Chicago and Fort Wayne (148 miles). H. Rudgard (233) noted that the locomotive was extremely smooth running, but that the tubes tended to get dirty more quickly. He stated that the tests of the Beyer-Ljungstrom tended to suffer from the locomotive only being allowed on the main line with special permission and at the slightest sign of trouble it was taken off. T. Henry Turner (239) noted that the smoother traction would be appreciated by the passengers; noted that there had been improvements in condensing mechanisms, the possibility of using a geared reciprocating engine for travel in the reverse direction, and possibly acting as a "booster" to assist in starting: he also refered to S.R.M. Porter's B-E bogie. H.I. Andrews (252) could not understand what was going on inside the turbine when the locomotive was exerting tractive force at standstill: Bond replied to this with the assistance of R.A. Struthers of Metropolitan-Vickers (pp. 255-6): basically the energy is briefly converted to heat within the turbine,.

The Castles were the most economical locomotives of their time. A castles average coal consumption was 2.83 pounds per drawbar horsepower per hour compared to the average 4 pounds common on other locomotives in the 1920s.

Some information on running costs of steam locomotives in the 1950s can be found here.

Atkins, Philip. It had already been done!. Steam Wld, 1999, (143) 54-7.Atkins considers that J.F. Harrison's claim made in 1961 that the A1 class achieved a mileage of 202 miles per day has not withstood close scrutiny and was probably nearer 184.9, as compared with 184.7 achieved by Duchess class. The class 91 electric locomotives achieve 740 miles per day. Britannia class Nos. 70036 achieved 104,549, 70039 104,226 and 70040 102,748 miles in 1953 or 19/4 in the case of the latter pair.

Some information on Thames tugs here (which might be of use for smaller steamships):

1857 Delivered to William Watkins, London. 7-1870 New boilers and major engine room overhaul at Wigrams, £4000. 1876 Overhaul and new boilers £3000. Coal consumption 19 tons per day. Old boiler overhauled and installed in Renown...

Some useful information here on the savings in coal consumption made by fitting a superheater to one particular locomotive (the BR 2MT):

Quote

The fitting of a two row superheater was estimated to improve coal consumption by as much as 20%. The original boiler on 46464 was changed when the engine was shopped in 1961. She now carries the boiler from 46465, which spent it's working life in Cambridgeshire.

Two years later, the RAG reported on the results of trials: "In passenger service a test on the Kalispell division showed a saving of 13 per cent in water and 14% per cent in coal per car mile, while in freight service on the Wlllmar division the saving was 30% per cent in water and 28% per cent in coal per ton mile, the coal figures being 137% for the simple and 98 pounds for the superheaters per 1,000 ton miles, both very satisfactory figures for prairie type engines in freight service on an undulating road. The company also reports a comparison for nine months between a superheater freight engine and a similar simple engine, showing 137 pounds of coal per 1,000 ton miles for the superheater against 171 for the simple, and a cost for repairs of 4 cents per mile against 3.87 cents, a reduction in the coal consumption of 20 per cent with practically the same cost of repairs.

Some more American information, this time comparing the running costs cost of steam and diesel locomotives:

In 1947 the SLNCR took delivery of a railcar from Walker Bros. of Wigan. This railcar, which was designated 'B', was purchased as the result of the company's desire to reduce the operating costs of its scant passenger traffic. This had been handled for the most part, since the introduction of its first railbus, 'A' in 1935, by a number of railbuses. These had been converted from road buses by the GNR, specially for the Sligo and Leitrim. The operating economics of the railbuses had persuaded the directors of the permanently financially straitened SLNCR to invest £10,500 in a larger purpose-built railcar similar to the ones which had been such a success on the CDR and GNR.

Railcar 'B' was powered by a 102hp Gardner diesel engine mounted on a four-wheeled power bogie on which was constructed the forward driving cab which enclosed the engine assembly. The power bogie was of the four coupled wheel arrangement with outside rods. It was articulated to the main passenger coach, which was carried on a plain bogie. Transmission consisted of a fluid flywheel, a Wilson epicyclic gearbox, propeller shaft, and an air-operated final drive and reverser unit. The railcar was 54' 11¼" long, 9' 6" wide and weighed 18 tons 12 cwt. Maximum speed was 45 mph. It returned a fuel consumption of 12 mpg and operating costs of 4d. per mile, one eighth those of a steam train

(although note the reference to steam train, not locomotive, implying that the cost of carriages were also taken into account in the figure of one eighth).

Something from Wikipedia on the coal consumption of the Bulleid light pacifics:

Quote

the Light Pacifics burned 47.9 lb (21.73 kg) of coal per mile compared to 32 lb (14.51 kg) burned by the T9 class that they replaced.

As to the cost of undersea tunnels, some information on the cost of the Severn Tunnel. The exact cost I cannot find, but it appears to have been in the region of £1,000,000 in 1873-1886: see here. According to Wikipedia, the tunnel is 4 miles 624 yd (7,008 m) long, although only 2¼ miles (3.62 km) of the tunnel are under the river.

Hmm - I don't think that we could practically have variable costs depending on the type of ground in Simutrans, so we should simply have to find some sort of reasonable average, taking into account that under-sea building costs much more than under-land building.

This caption on a Flickr phogotraph of a very small halt with short platforms and a single wooden building built by the GWR in 1906 reports the price as being £264. It is described as serving "a small hamlet 700 yards to the East".

On an unrelated topic, this item of news shows that a new carriage for the Welsh Highland Railway, a 2ft narrow gauge line, built in 2012, cost £100,000. It is a large carriage of its type (seating capacity is not given), and is described as being intended to be particularly comfortable (for a narrow gauge carriage, at any rate).

I am currently taking a holiday in North Wales, and have taken the opportunity to gather some pricing information in respect of some of the narrow gauge lines in the area, which is potentially useful now that Pak128.Britain has some narrow gauge items (based on the Ffestiniog Railway, it seems). I have not always had time to note the names of the books from which, by browsing them in bookshops, I have garered these data.

A narrow gauge slate wagon in 1901 was recorded as costing £59, and a passenger brake in the same year £79. I am told by staff at the Welsh Highland Heritage Railway that the normal capacity of slate wagons was 2t on the narrow gauge, heavier wagons tending to derail (although there seem to have been larger wagons for coal and goods from about the 1920s onwards).

The Veil of Rheidol's locomotive "Rheidol" 2-4-0T was purchased secondhand for £591 in about 1902, having previously been owned by contractors constructing the line. A larger 2-6-2T of the same line (no.9) is recorded as having been purchased for £1,750 in 1902 and a seemingly identical locomotive (but query whether by then fitted with suprheating) in 1923 for £2,737 (no. 7).

A small four wheel "toastrack" carriage (no. 42) built for the Welsh Highland Railway in 1923 (and preserved by the Welsh Highland Heritage Railway at Porthmadog) cost £155 new. It was open sided, had hard slatted wooden bench seats, and would not have been very comfortable.

A batch of 4 corridor bogie coaches built in 1923 was recorded as costing £2,604, and a batch of 2 good brakes in 1902 were recorded as costing £168 (both for the North Wales Narrow Gauge line).

The Ffestiniog Railway's second steam locomotive (to the same design as its first and a number of subsequent locomotives), known as "Prince", cost £975-7-6 when new in 1863, and had a tractive effort of 4,489lbf.

A "single Fairlie" locomotive for that same line built in 1872, and considered at the time to be faster and more economical to run than other locomotives on the line, including the more powerful "double Fairlies" (the design of the current narrow gauge steam locomotive in pak128.Britain), cost £1,305 new.

A "double Fairlie", by contrast, when built in 1869, cost £1,905, although the source that I found expressed some equivocation as to the price, recording that it might have been as low as about £1,600 or so.It weighed 24t and had a tractive effort of 6,059lbf.

The North Wales Narrow Gauge (later Welsh Highland Railway)'s now preserved "Russell" of 1906 weighed 20t and had a tractive effort of 7,425lbf, although I cannot find pricing information for this one.

Deviating briefly to Ffestiniog liveries, two basic schemes for locomotives seem to have been employed (with some minor variations that would not show up on the Simutrans scale), with the original 1863 scheme being red with black lining and a new scheme adopted in 1925 and initially continued into preservation being dark green with yellow lining (the original livery for locomotives, or near enough, having been restored somewhere around the1990s, I think).

JamespettsYou have be dig out old Prices from Railvehicles and i be ge a shock!The Prices was very low!Low Prices and maintencecost be create in simutrans std a moneyflood!I will try to play a little bit more with Simutrans exp but i have A pakset with damage what i must be rescure!

The construction of the works of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway required immense and unremitting labour. Besides the embankment over Chat Moss, to which we shall have again to refer, there was the building of viaducts, the formation of cuttings and embankments, the erection of sixty three bridges, and the construction of a tunnel near Liverpool; besides the laying down of the permanent way, the erection of stations and warehouses, and the preparation of the engines, carriages, and wagons. The cost was as follows:Cuttings and Embankments £199,763Chat Moss 27,719Tunnel 47,788Land 95,305Fencing 10,202Bridges 99,065Formation of Road 20,568Laying of Blocks and Sleepers 20,520Laying of Rails (£ 12 10s. per ton) 60,912Surveying, Law, Parliamentary, and Incidental 157,341Total £739,183

Until today I put in prices and running costs of aircraft in a very coarse. I, for certain airplanes, I could not find the associated costs. James, you found some page where they listed all costs or you have found the prices in the descriptions of individual aircraft?

Until today I put in prices and running costs of aircraft in a very coarse. I, for certain airplanes, I could not find the associated costs. James, you found some page where they listed all costs or you have found the prices in the descriptions of individual aircraft?

ThanksGiuseppe

Wikipedia has capital cost information on many aircraft. I did once find a page that had per kilometre fuel costs as well as capital costs, but unfortunately seem to have lost that now. However, fuel costs can be calculated from fuel consumption data if those are available. I should note that fuel consumption is not the only cost of aircraft, however.

I should add that the pakset has yet to be balanced using the data gathered together on this thread.

Very interesting information on the relative fuel cost of diesel and electric trains:

Quote

The use of two power cars in the 125 dieseFhauled trains made energy costs an importantfactor. Again, the electrical rating (two sets of 1,680 kW motors, for a total of 3,360 kW per train)proportionate to the length and weight, but the cost of generating this power was compared withenergy c.osts for locomotive-hauled electric passenger trains on the WCMLIn. 1978, the fuel costson BR were given as 44p (70¢) per mile for diesel traction, while electric traction cost 19p (30¢)per mite:. In the mid=1980s the 125 energy/fuel costs had risen to £1.37 ($2.19) per mile (whichwas equal to 30p [48¢] per seat/mile), whereas the electric traction costs had risen to £1.04 ($1.66)per mile, and 18p (29¢) per seat mile (Potter, 1988: 111). In energy costs, electric traction maintainedits comparative efficiency, but the global fuel crisis of the late 1970s shows in the 1978figures --in the mid-1980s the differential had been clearly reduced. There is no reason to doubtthat a similar relationship between the cost of diesel and electric energy prevails still today.

Edit: From the same article, interesting information about (relatively) high speed track for 125mph (200km/h) operation:

Quote

This is an elegant way of saying that the additional speed caused the cars to lurch noticeablyon encountering minor misalignments of the track. Thus, a major leap in the maintenance of trackand the parameters of acceptable track geometry were required. Since track maintenance washistoric:ally labor-intensive, the higher standards have led BR to introduce continuous welded rail(CWR), found extensively (ultimately ubiquitously) on high-speed lines, and to introduce newvery sophisticated equipment to detect track wear and to replace manual labor in maintenanceactivity. The network relays roughly 600 miles of track per year, and on the high-speed lines thenew track is laid on concrete ties, now more closely spaced than hithertofore, and on a greaterdepth of ballast (Nock, 1980: 33-39).]By 1979, BRh ad largely completed the installation of CWRw ith heavy rail comparable tothat used elsewhere in Europe (60 kg rail per meter/ll5 lbs a yard) and had made a lot of progresswith ballasting and tamping machines to adjust misaligned track 0R J, December 1979: 42-44). BRalso developed its own track recording car in 1977 (IRJ, March 1977: 29).

A great deal of useful information on the price of pre-1923 railway carriages can be found in the two volumes of "Midland Railway Carriages" by R. E. Lacy and George Dow. There are too many data to give every record, but it is interesting to note that early railway carriages (1860s and before) do not appear to differ greatly in price, being something between £225 and £250 per vehicle for the most part.

More interesting, however, is that a price for overhaul is given of these vehicles. On p. 31 of volume 1, it is recorded that 50 composite carriages were "accepted for repairing, repainting and retrimming" at £62 per carriage. That suggests an overhaul price for early carriages of something in the approximate region of 25% of capital cost.

It is to be noted that, although overhaul prices are not currently relevant in Simutrans (Standard or Experimental), it is planned to introduce a system of regular overhauls in the near future, so this cost ratio is of great interest.

Edit: The same source (at p. 42) gives the price of passenger rated milk vans built in the early 1870s as £171/each.

Edit 2: The same volume at p. 43 indicates that travelling post office vehicles were more expensive: an example from 1844 is recorded as having cost £460 per carriage.

Edit 3: By the 1860s, the cost seems to have risen to £500 apiece: ibid p. 44.

Edit 4: As to repair costs, the same source at p. 46 records that, in 1853, 50 men were employed to repair carriages for every 1,000 carriages that the company owned (423 in total): that is 0.05 full time maintenance staff per carriage. Their wage is not given, nor the ratio of parts to labour cost.

Edit 5: The same work records the cost of the Midland bogie carriage of the 1870s as costing £820 each with four wheeled bogies or £979 with six wheel bogies (p. 57).

Edit 6: The cost of upgrading 88 carriages to automatic continuous braking in 1876 is recorded as £2,904 (p. 65, ibid): that is £33 per carriage.

you ought to write a monography on the economy and cost structure of railways in the 19 century. Almost a by-product of your in-depth research of the topic. The many snippets you have to collect, indicates there's no comprehensive work on that topic.

I'd keep my eyes open on results from this research group at london school of economics, history economics department:

"We propose to use modern economic theory to measure more accurately the effects of major technological changes. We will do this in a comparative setting, comparing the current new technology - computing - with those of the 19th and early 20th centuries, railways and electricity. In order to understand the effects fully, our work will approach these incidents from consumers', as well as producers' points of view, looking at social as well as private returns[.] [...]"

A useful exposition of the relationship between capital and maintenance cost for steam locomotives from this source:

Quote

Annual maintenance costs for steam engines accounted for 25% of the initial purchase price. Spare parts were machined from wooden masters for specific locomotives. The sheer number of unique steam engines meant that there was no feasible way for spare-part inventories to be maintained.

Some very useful information on capital cost of canal narrowboats here: in the mid 1930s, a diesel powered narrowboat cost £900, whilst an unpowered "butty" cost £400. No information on the cost of steam boats, sadly, but one can deduce that it would be a figure between those two, probably closer to the diesel boat cost than the unpowered boat cost.

Further useful information on the cost of canal boats: a narrowboat sized steam tug with an iron hull cost £1,150 in 1876 - see here. (Note: the document refers to 1976 in places, but the context makes it clear that this is written in error for 1876).

Edit: It should further be noted (from the same source) that in 1929, the steam engine was replaced by a Bolinder semi-diesel (rated at 30hp) at a total cost of £422. This might be very useful for the purpose of determining upgrade costs.

OT, on the link above: I'm more surprised by the periods of very strong deflation. 1802 -23.0% with a trend of general deflation for two decades, must have been quite a hit on the economy in early industrialisation.

According to this source, the MV Lochfyne, Britain's first diesel-electric passenger ship cost £3-10-0 per day to run, which was "half that of a conventional vessel at the time", but passenger comfort was reduced because of the vibration of the early diesel engines.